Posted
by
Soulskillon Monday April 12, 2010 @01:15PM
from the yet-we-still-see-right-through-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The US Trade Representative issued a release just prior to the launch of the New Zealand round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations that has left no doubt the US is the biggest barrier to official release of the ACTA text. Unlike most other ACTA countries that have called for transparency without condition, the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."

It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1%3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media.4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

Anyone care to explain to me why Shotgun's comment was modded "Flamebait?" Is there not a huge disconnect between Obama's grandiose campaign promises and the reality of the policies that he's either implementing or continuing? I know it's a bitter pill for some to swallow, but anyone who was paying attention could've seen this coming.

Well - if any of those governments involved were really superior to our own pitiful government, they would refuse to participate in secret talks concering a secret treaty. They're all dirtbags, from Oz to Europe to America. Who else is involved? Surely there are Asian countries in on it. But, I kind of expect most Asian governments to be secretive. Dirtbags all, willing to sell their people's rights for a few campaign dollars.

Obama is a corporatist. I knew it from the start. He is much more corporate than even Bill Clinton, who at least acknowledged after the fact that NAFTA was a huge screw-up. John Stewart interviewed Obama's law school adviser on election night, and said adviser admitted that Reagan was Obama's favorite president. Obama is not even close to being a socialist. He's barely a liberal at all.

I know it's a bitter pill for some to swallow, but anyone who was paying attention could've seen this coming.

So, once again we Americans managed to elect another stiff that breaks his campaign vision? Hell, we on the right threw everything we had into Bush's vision of a "humbler America" and "limited government" only to find ourselves compromising our own very values in support of an administration that pissed off the entire planet and ironically, laid the groundwork for the very federal activism that is

In the case of politicians you still have to bear in mind competence. That there is a bias to those that often gain wealth via corrupt practices and seek to protect and enhance those corrupt practices is known. What tends to matter most is the degree of competence in balancing that bias and not letting get wildly out of control as some crazy shared get rich quick scheme.

With regards to ACTA, the US lobbyist team is likely shooting itself in the foot with regard to blocking transparency until they get wha

You don't actually slap a big tax randomly on things, that cost should reflect fair trade, where imported goods are subject to the exact same cost impacts of, fair and reasonable wages, safe working conditions, environmental protection costs, realistic taxation basis and, acceptable conditions of employment. In line with normal competitive practices, companies can still be required to compete whether local or foreign, but that competition should be done upon an equal basis. This is ultimately fair and huma

Why mark the above post Flamebait? Just because the situation doesn't fit the narrow scope of your understanding of reality, and because your favorite candidate turned into the same sponsored turd as the guy before him, doesn't mean you should lash out at people who make that observation.

Because any and all criticism of Barack H. Obama is flamebait. The same criticism of George W. Bush using the same language regarding the same topic would have warranted a +5 insightful. Didn't you read that part of the moderation faq?

Barack H. Obama was bought and paid for by Big Media <-- -1, troll
George W. Bush was bought and paid for by Big Oil <-- +5, insightful

Because any and all criticism of Barack H. Obama is flamebait. The same criticism of George W. Bush using the same language regarding the same topic would have warranted a +5 insightful.

Actually, the same criticism of GWB would've also been modded Flamebait or Troll initially, and only after further moderation would it reach +5 Insightful..... just like Shotgun's post, which was modded Flamebait when you posted, but is currently +5 Insightful.

But, of course, everyone likes to think that their point of view is being stifled by the mindless majority.

It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally
2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1%
3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media.
4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

That actually is a conspiracy for it requires many people to cooperate together to accomplish a shared goal. Self-interest is assumed in a conspiracy since it is unusual to form conspiracies for purposes of charity. It's also a conspiracy because the same small (compared to the whole US population) group that owns the large IP also owns the media. That's evidenced by conducting a smear campaign which by its very nature is not terribly interested in factual accuracy.

There's nothing magic about the word "conspiracy" except in the minds of people who are desperate to dismiss a notion without actually finding fault with it. "You said 'conspiracy' therefore you're automatically a nut and I'll ignore your ideas without actually investigating them" is how that goes. It's a weak mind that uses such tactics to shelter itself from ideas that it would rather not consider. It's a tool of marginalization and nothing more.

If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:

conspiracy
/knsprsi/ [[ask.com]] Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see] [[ask.com]] Show IPA
–noun,plural-cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

As I have explained from time to time on this site, if you work at a company that produces widgets, you and all of your co-workers are conspiring to make widgets. To put it mildly, it'd be extremely poor form to read that sentence and then dismiss without examination the notion that the company exists, that you work there, or that you make widgets. But that's generally what people want this magic keyword "conspiracy" to be -- an automatic way to end any discussion with zero effort, zero evidence, and no good reason.

If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Regardless of these being from Dictionary.com, I debate #5 being an accurate definition for that word. "Combination in bringing about a given result" is the definition of "cooperation". "Conspiracy" definitely has a negative, malevolent connotation.

That debate aside, I think #3 is most accurate with regard to ACTA. Especially the "secret" part.

Perhaps we should differentiate between explicit and implicit conspiracies. Generally in the popular conception of conspiracy, the conspirators actually conspire together. Meaning, they get together to discuss plans to achieve their ends, and then carry out those plans. That is an explicit conspiracy, and TheMeuge was hypothesizing that perhaps the interested parties here never needed to sit down and discuss plans together. Perhaps they were all acting individually, in an implicit conspiracy. In fact, this type of 'conspiracy' is far more common. Very few people are comfortable believing they are the bad guy. Explicit conspiracies require some kind of an acknowledgment from the conspirators that they are engaging in a conspiracy. Because implicit conspiracies require no active conspiring, people engaged in them don't even need to admit to themselves that they are doing so. The oppression of the lower classes by the owning class is an example of such an implicit conspiracy. Far from having to admit to themselves or each other that they are oppressing the lower classes, the owning class has the privilege of believing they are in fact helping them.

Nope, that isn't what I said, but I wasn't really clear about it so I'll try to explain. Active participation in a conspiracy requires more thought. IF what you are conspiring towards is bad for others, conspiring actively is more likely to bring this to your attention. If you are not actively conspiring with others, the evil you are doing is easier to sweep under the rug of your subconscious. Is that clearer?

I think the general accepted forms of conspiracy are definitions 2, 3, and 4 (and of course, 1). Taking the context in what the GP said, he was talking about the lack of "surreptitious" cooperation on the part of the pro-ACTA parties. When context is provided, definition takes the passenger seat.

You could also include Alex Jones' opinion (take with a spoonful of sugar):

- The mainstream media is owned by the banks, so naturally they are not going to talk about it. The banks want to chain the people financially and creatively. The bank-owned media also wants to pass laws to shutdown the net, since it is hurting them financially and politically (people speaking truth to power).

You don't even need 50.1% to win an election in the United States. You just need a plurality of the votes. In fact, it was considered noteworthy that Obama won more than 50% of the vote because it had been decades since a Democratic president had won an outright majority of the popular vote, rather than a mere plurality.

No, you've misunderstood how elections work in the US. You need 50%+1 of the votes--however in Presidential elections it is not the popular vote that is counted but the votes of the Electoral College. To be elected President you must have 50%+1 vote from the Electoral College, which you could theoretically win with as little as ~25% of the national popular vote. In virtually all other elections it's just 50%+1 of the popular vote.

"In virtually all other elections it's just 50%+1 of the popular vote."

I should have been more clear about the popular vote, but your claim about other elections is false. Very few state or or local elections, and no federal elections, require more than a plurality of the popular vote. Some states have run-off elections, but in the vast majority of elections, it's sufficient to obtain a plurality. We would have a great deal more run-off elections otherwise, because many close elections with third party cand

As for the Electoral college, while it is true that a president could theoretically win with a mere 10-25% of the popular vote, I only recall two elections in America's history where the electoral vote diverged from the popular vote.

I agree. I think we should scrap the Electoral College as its an antiquated, undemocratic, and unnecessary intermediary. It's only positive function is that it theoretically gives smaller states more influence, but it arguably gives too much power to small states. And, in any case, I think we should move beyond the idea of representing state sovereigns rather than persons.

They were forced to resort to indirect democracy 200 years ago because they lacked the infrastructure for direct democracy, but that limitation is long gone now.

This is incorrect according to the letters, pamphlets, and other historical writings from the period concerning the Constitution and the founders. "They" (the founders) made a studied and considered deliberate decision to *not* have a direct democracy as they fall prey to the "tyranny of the majority". It had nothing to do with the difficulty in tab

The idea of the Electoral College doesn't make any more sense than the United States Senate does, yet nobody really talks about how California has the same amount of representation as Montana in a national legislative body.

Both make perfect sense if you remember the fact that California and Montana are sovereign states that retain all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government nor refused to the States.

The idea that "sovereign states" still exist is kind of a farce. The federal government has been taking more and more power with each war we fight and each time they can incite fear in people to make it ok.

The last time a state tried to assert it's rights as a sovereign entity we had a civil war over the results.

# Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage# Conspiracy (crime), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement# Conspiracy (political), the overthrow of a government

conspire Look up conspire at Dictionary.com
c.1300, from O.Fr. conspirer, from L. conspirare

Here's what to watch for: In a political environment where Republicans have been completely unified in opposition by every single act of President Obama, there will suddenly be wide bi-partisan support for ACTA. It will be sloughed off by the media as an aberration, and you'll hear how "It must be a good treaty since there's bi-partisan support".

Then you'll know that in fact the people who get commonly laughed at with claims of "Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same" were right all along.

But nobody will see it that way, because like with NAFTA and the PATRIOT Act, there will be some trivial partisan issue that will pop up immediately after its ratification that will wipe ACTA right off the front pages so the people who use political parties they way sports fans use home teams can get all exercised again and never realize that they've just been bent over a chair and dry-fucked.

No, I personally voted for the other "other" guy. And I voted against pretty much every incumbent in the race (sometimes on moral grounds, sometimes due to political views)... As an American who's sick of the system the way it is, I vote and encourage people to vote to remove all 535 from office and to replace them by rounds every 2 years. I realize we need party leadership and we need people who understand the system, but guess what, when every citizen CAN hold office, nobody needs to be shown HOW to hold office.

A handful of men realized this 250 years ago, when they started a new country, and they figured that everyone who had any education could hold office. (granted, I'm not saying all their practices were right: I'm just as against slavery and the oppression of women as anyone else ~ I'm just saying the political concepts were much better suited for citizen self-governance).

However, given the massive tie-in and buy-in of Corporate America inside the beltway, I'm not sure how we can really revert the damages of our fathers and our fathers fathers.

tl;dr: Hey AC, we don't all want the hope and change that's being shoveled down our throats, mkay?

Voting against every incumbant is easy, but it's not really going to help. If a politician thinks "no matter what I do, I'll be voted out" there's not much reason for him to care about the voters, is there? We can fix the current system by establishing a simple feedback loop - act in the interest of the voters, and we'll keep you; act in the interest of campaign contributors, and you're out.

Of course, the only reason why politicians care about these campaign contributors is the need for huge media buys. If we all just ignored political ads entirely, they stop working, and the expense vanishes.

Yeah, but the problem is that not all the taxpayers agree on what is in their interest. If we did all agree, I think this would already be the system, but we don't. Instead you have Joe over there and John over here fighting about everything themselves, and Mr. Politician on Capitol Hill hearing both of them, as well as hearing what some big rich corporation has to say, and having to make some sort of decision. But Mr. Politician doesn't really know anything about the subject at hand (nor do Joe or John,

Once again we devolve back down to "because of Corporate America" in any base form. How does politics devolve to this?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole shebang in "how it happened, why it's here", but what I wanna know is can we get away from it, or do I need to figure out how to get to the head of DOW or something and then try to effect change? (yeah right, like that would ever happen)

I know voting against the incumbents is easy, and I pointed out some of that was purely emotional, some logical. Personally I don't care if we shuffle through new ones EVERY two years. If we do so, then I say "Great"; it means that they know they're coming home as soon as their two years are up, so they know they're RESPONSIBLE for the laws they passed. If that means stalemate everywhere, awesome, it also means we learn to live with a new paradigm. The no-laws-getting-passed-because-everyone-is-afraid-to-ma

You know there's nothing in the Constitution or laws granting slavery or oppression of women, right? And according to my reading of said documents, it's implicitly denied because the Constitution applies to all people, not just white male people.

Wait, I said I'm against it, and you asked me if I know there's nothing against it in the Constitution? Sounds like you're trolling buddy. Of course I know there's nothing there. But that doesn't change how they instituted the policies at the time. The Founding Fathers by and large all had slaves and their women were happy to not vote (supposedly).

So exactly what was your point? You wanted to agree with me? Thanks, I think.

Typically when you look at what actually happens, rather than the rhetoric, term limits tend to increase corporate power in government (see e.g. here [wayne.edu]). Basically, your average citizen doesn't know what's going on with the government. Government is a very complicated piece of work, and if you pull out all the people who know how to operate it, the only people left who can make it go are the vendors' marketing departments and whoever has the tech support contract -- i.e. the lobbyists and corporate represen

I don't think he literally meant THE MOST RECENT time that happened (last week? this morning?), but rather the last time our countrymen did something productive about it (In my case that may have been c. AD 800 when they were pillaging the monastaries on the coast of England).

We were hoping he wasn't George Bush, that was pretty much it. The man has always been center-right, and those of us paying attention aren't real surprised at stuff like this. Hell I only voted for the man so I could see half my country lose it's shit. Time to hang up my "mission accomplished" banner yet?

However with ACTA, and basically every other big content initiative, Obama is openly and completely on their (big media's) side and shows every indication that he'll fight as hard to take away our rights as he did to pass health care.....

As an American, no i can't. We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

As an American, the logical place to complain would be to the elected federal officers that represent you, that is, the President, Vice President, the two US Senators from your state, and your Representative in the House of Representatives.

You might also look into participating in groups that are interested in the issue.

There are people participating in such groups, but every time they turn around, someone calls them a teabagger and tries to point to some nut-job racist calling him the leader trying to discredit the movement even though he didn't start it.

As an American, I will explain it. We are no different than anyone else who becomes corrupted by money and power. In fact, throughout existence it has been this way. Regardless of any viewpoint of morality or sense of right regardless of country, money talks to these people. Its the only thing they answer to. Sad, but true from the beginning of human nature.
What can be done to fix it? lol

Negotiation among businesses is different from negotiation among nations: in the latter, the negotiations proper should be private, but the discussions of the needs of stakeholders and of the outcome must be public. It's just that, in this particular case, "stakeholder" was construed to exclude citizen-licensers and citizen-licensees and only include large business interests. Therefore, because not only will the process not take our needs into account, they won't even acknowledge them, the retaliatory steps

I feel strangely about this. It's kind of like getting divorced, and hiring a very effective, but unethical and evil divorce lawyer. You want effective representation, but if you weren't interested in the outcome you'd despise the person who chose to employ such a lawyer.

That's how I'd feel about this, if the US trade representative was working in my interests. But of course, he/she doesn't. They're working for Disney / Microsoft / Viacom / Appple / etc. interests.

So now I feel like somone really is acting really sleazy in my name, even when they don't represent my actual interests. I'm pretty disgusted.

...the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."

Not true-- this is what was said:

“In this upcoming round of ACTA negotiations, the U.S. delegation will be working with other delegations to resolve some fundamental issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights that are the focus of this agreement. Progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release a text that will provide meaningful information to the public and be a basis for productive dialogue."

This says if we work on scope our release will be more meaningful-- it by no means says no release until scope issues are resolved.

I beg to differ. I read "progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release" as saying that the order of events is "progress" -> "prepare" -> "release a text" , thus progress must precede releasing a text. The definition of "progress" seems to be defined as "... issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights." I'm pretty sure that most of us believe that the U.S. position on scope is going to be in favor of large IP holders.

Now what? You couldn't stop the health care fraud. What makes a small group of people think they are going to have any influence on this? This is like watching the AOPA trying to keep Meigs Field [friendsofmeigs.org] open. Copyright has already successfully balkanized the net. You're on the corporate wire here. You people are OWNED!

"My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use."

"Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government."

"Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector."

I read and re-read the statement, then read what Michael Geist post about what it is supposed to mean and I don't get it. It seems Mr. Geist is twisting the words to try to make a hoopla where there is none.

Just read the whole thing with a cool head: The U.S. Trade Representative is saying "lets agree on some language to put in paper so we can allow the public to review it"... Geist translates it to "no public review until everybody sign the treaty"

If you think about it: there is no final draft, they haven't agree on final language yet. Allowing public intervention on terms that are being negotiated is counter-productive. Remember, this needs to be approved by Congress after it is signed.

hey, american acta representatives: you are my representatives. you cannot adequately represent me if you won't even tell me what you are representing in my name. as such, you are not a true representative of the will of the american people, nor are we bound to any agreements you make

your intentions have been revealed to be malicious due to the secrecy you wish to cloak yourself in: there is no honest reason for the secrecy

The USA wants some language in ACTA. But they don't want to tip their hands to certain parties outside of the process. Or these parties might call 'bullshit' on the whole thing and bring their countries negotiators home. So what's in question? Its not patents or copyrights. Everyone knows the negotiating positions and national interests involved with these issues. And the representatives from various nations are well prepared to defend their own interests in these areas.

It appears that the USA is interested in keeping any outside eyes off their proposals. This would seem to indicate that the language they want added is aimed at something other than the standard IP issues one would associate with such a treaty.

The important difference is that people voted for Obama, even though they disagreed with many things he called for, because he promised them "change" and "transparency". It is one thing when you vote for somebody because they claim to be for a bunch of ideas you support and then learn that they aren't going to actually support half of them. It is another thing entirely to vote for someone because of one or two ideas that you think are very important while you disagree with most of what they say they want to do and then discover that they aren't going to do the things you liked, but are going to do the things you were at best ambivalent about.

The important difference is that people voted for Obama, even though they disagreed with many things he called for, because he promised them "change" and "transparency".

Or, possibly, they voted for Obama, because the idea of Sarah Palin being the VP to a 72-year-old president was scarier than having Joe Biden being the VP to a 47-year-old president.

Or possibly they voted for Obama, because the Republicans decided to go for a guy, who was worse than George W. Bush back in 2000? Or maybe they figured the Republicans had already done enough damage to mess up the country, and that anything but a Republican would be good, but the only viable choice was a Democrat? Sometimes it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.

But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process. At least we were able to see the final health-care negotiations televised on C-SPAN, as Obama promised. Oh, wait...

Too many people drank the Obama kool-aid during the campaign and can't bring themselves to see that he's just another lying politician, from the left this time instead of the right.

I've been voting for 8 years now in the USA. I've never voted for a democrat or a republican for any office above state-congress level representation. After my poly sci class my senior year of high school I just couldn't bring myself to support either of the candidates fueled by so much, 'special interest money,' (read rich man's bribes). Everyone I've told this to has always criticized me for throwing away my vote, but so far as I see it, voting for third party candidates or write-ins is the only viable means we, as Americans, have to stand up and say, "None of the above," on our ballots. I'd mush rather tell my government, "Screw you, you're all doing it wrong," and be ignored than know that I cast a vote for an idiot, a sociopath, or a psycho.

The only reason I bring this up is that, if you ask me, it's looked like a sham from the beginning. Then again I am very young, and perhaps there were some decades before my time where politicians and the electoral system didn't suck nearly as badly as they do today.

But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process.

Absolutely. Assuming he is aware of what is going on with this, he seems to be breaking a campaign promise. My real question is, where are the opposition politicians on this? I mean, when the president breaks campaign promises, shouldn't Republican, at least a few of them, be calling him out on it publicly? I've heard not a peep, even from folks like Ron Paul. Are they all so badly in the pockets of lobbyists they won't even bring this up to attack their opponents?

despite the irony that occurs from the fact that the GP calls people to change their votes by saying 'there has been no change' in administration, and the parent says the feasible one that the votes will be changed to was the actual one which came up with this shit.

Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely. At least this removes all question of whose interests the Obama administration has at heart. I only good I can hope to see from this is that the DNC will lose significant goodwill with people who get their news online, harming their electability in November as people choose to stay home, or cast their vote with a 3rd party.

Except that what will actually happen is people will vote Republicans back in and those Republicans will gladly forge ahead with ACTA just as much as the Democrats are.